Republican Senator Convicted

[jdobbin]

If you read the transcript, the officer makes it sound as if there will be no public record if he pled guilty, but there would be if he pled innocent. Under the circumstances, I can understand why a public official would plea bargain and plead guilty for a lesser charge.

I'm surprised at the Republican calls for his resignation. I'm not sure how serious a charge this actually was since even if he was guilty, it seems to me he was just trying to pick someone up in a bathroom. People of the opposite sex are constantly trying to pick people up in public places. If he were trying to solicit sex for money, then it would be illegal, but I don't see where this was for money.

The Supreme Court has weighed in for both Canada and the U.S. and said that the police can lie during interrogation once the accused has been told they have the right to seek counsel. They can tell the accused many things such as: there are witnesses, that the police already know what happened but want to hear their side, etc.

It is called: getting a confession.

As far as I can see, the police were doing their job. I personally don't believe that there was enough to see the arrest go to conviction in a court of law. Such cases usually depend on a confession.

The charge they made on the Senator was not solicitation but lewd behaviour. It can be a serious charge varying from a misdemeanour to a felony offense. It doesn't always have to be about money as it covers public sex or exposing yourself in public.

Edited September 1, 2007 by jdobbin

[geoffrey]

Do you think the police were wrong to stake out the washroom after there were complaints that it was being used for the purpose of illegal activity?

Yes. When they 'bumped' feet, it's quite simple to realise the cop must have had his foot pretty far over too. Consider how low the walls are, there is only so far you can invade a cubical without doing the splits. The police attempted to get someone caught, so they'd look good to their boss. It turned out they grabbed a Senator.

There is a difference between a stake out and directly encouraging situations that could possibly lead to a conviction... whether that conviction is right or wrong.

It's common practice speaking to cops to issue tickets after an interview for a 'minor' offense knowing the people are too scared of dealing with the more major ones to fight back. It guarntees a guilty plea and makes them look good to whoever assigned them to do whatever.

Do you think they were wrong about the "signs" about how propositions are made in a washroom?

Yes. They made some rather ridiculous assumptions.

Do you have knowledge of it not happening that way?

The Senator and the officer seem to have very similar accounts of the story. The differences are mostly infered and impossible. I really disagree with the left hand versus right hand discussion. I think the Senator is right here. It doesn't even make logical sense to use your left hand if that was your intention. If you were picking up gay men in a washroom do you think you'd be flashing your wedding ring?

No. The officer got caught in a lie (if you listen to the audio) and then tried to back that lie up by making a more ridiculous story that fit his desired outcome.

Do you think it is something that should be ignored? If the the police are forbidden from using sound or video equipment in a washroom, how exactly do they arrest people engaged in illegal activity?

Personally, if someone tried to pull a stunt like that on me, I'd quickly deal with it myself and the police wouldn't have to be involved. Sometimes people dealing with situations themselves provides more of a deterrent than police ever will.

Beyond that. This particular interview and then conviction are clear indiction of what I was saying earlier about police attitudes. These young officers get assigned to go bust some gays in a washroom, and then they stumble across something that MAY be questionable and blow the whole situation out of proportion. They developed inferences and a chain of events based upon their desired outcome. This isn't police work. This is bureaucratic appeasement.

I'm sorry if the senator thought that pleading guilty was going to erase this from the record. Since all legal decisions are public record, I don't see how it was going to be kept quiet. If the Senator thought he was wrongly accused, he should have sought counsel.

Someone cannot plea guilty unless they understand what the implications of their charge and conviction are. This one could get tossed on appeal. I'm not sure if it's going down that route though.

[jdobbin]

Yes. When they 'bumped' feet, it's quite simple to realise the cop must have had his foot pretty far over too. Consider how low the walls are, there is only so far you can invade a cubical without doing the splits. The police attempted to get someone caught, so they'd look good to their boss. It turned out they grabbed a Senator.

There is a difference between a stake out and directly encouraging situations that could possibly lead to a conviction... whether that conviction is right or wrong.

It's common practice speaking to cops to issue tickets after an interview for a 'minor' offense knowing the people are too scared of dealing with the more major ones to fight back. It guarntees a guilty plea and makes them look good to whoever assigned them to do whatever.

If you were picking up gay men in a washroom do you think you'd be flashing your wedding ring?

Personally, if someone tried to pull a stunt like that on me, I'd quickly deal with it myself and the police wouldn't have to be involved. Sometimes people dealing with situations themselves provides more of a deterrent than police ever will.

Beyond that. This particular interview and then conviction are clear indiction of what I was saying earlier about police attitudes. These young officers get assigned to go bust some gays in a washroom, and then they stumble across something that MAY be questionable and blow the whole situation out of proportion. They developed inferences and a chain of events based upon their desired outcome. This isn't police work. This is bureaucratic appeasement.

Someone cannot plea guilty unless they understand what the implications of their charge and conviction are. This one could get tossed on appeal. I'm not sure if it's going down that route though.

Officers can lie when getting a confession. The Supreme Court has indicated they can do this. As far as the "he said, police said", the Senator should have saved it for a court room.

The Senator mentioned the word entrapment. The courts have been quite clear what they think entrapment is and what it isn't. It is too bad the Senator didn't seek to counsel to actually make that defence.

I can well imagine how some people would settle such a situation without getting police involved. I wonder how a young boy would do it as witnessed by the same sort of event that took place in a Winnipeg park washroom this summer.

Edited September 1, 2007 by jdobbin

[Riverwind]

I am not sure what to think about this case. However, if the senator was guilty then one would assume that this was not first time he 'passed his card under the stall'. So why aren't there any previous partners coming forward to expose the senator for the hypocrite he his? Although the lack of partners coming forward does not prove his innocence it does seem to support the idea that he was entrapped.

Edited September 1, 2007 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

I am not sure what to think about this case. However, if the senator was guilty then one would assume that this was not first time he 'passed his card under the stall'. So why aren't there any previous partners coming forward to expose the senator for the hypocrite he his? Although the lack of partners coming forward does not prove his innocence it does seem to support the idea that he was entrapped.

The Senator's biggest mistake was not getting a lawyer when the police picked him up.

I think if the right wing is going to attack the police for doing their job, they will alienate another part of their base.

Edited September 2, 2007 by jdobbin

[gc1765]

I'm a bit curious why anyone (especially a senator) would supposedly pick up a piece of toilet paper from the floor of a public washroom. Obviously that doesn't make him guilty, but it does mean he is almost certainly lying.

[geoffrey]

I'm a bit curious why anyone (especially a senator) would supposedly pick up a piece of toilet paper from the floor of a public washroom. Obviously that doesn't make him guilty, but it does mean he is almost certainly lying.

It certainly is questionable, but who knows.

I think the claim that he reached with his opposite hand is more absurd. Beyond that, how their feet touched... that's simply not possible if the officer wasn't really moving his foot over. Just think about the physics.

[betsy]

If tapping a foot in a public restroom is considered lewd conduct, then definitely a lot of gay pride parade participants more than fit the bill and should all be facing charges and convictions! The parade should be given some guidelines to follow to adhere to public decency standards!

At least the foot-tapping happened in a restroom....and although it may be a public restroom, it still afforded some privacy. Whereas the lewd acts and heavily sex-oriented innuendoes of some gay participants in their parade (that could well be likened to the perversity of exhibitionism) - happen on floats or in plain view of the general public....including children and minors!

[kimmy]

I'm not sure why the resident Republican apoligists would consider this a non-issue. Perhaps they've never had to take a dump in one of these washrooms. If you've ever had creepy old right-wingers peeking through the crack in the door at you, you'd probably become a lot less permissive about what people do in the privacy of a public washroom.

I agree. I have no objection to the idea of keeping people from having sex in public washrooms. I do not think, for instance, that a parent should be placed in the position of having to explain to a young child what on earth is going on inside that stall with two pairs of shoes under the door. Is that prudish of me to not think that children should be exposed to that sort of thing?

I do have to wonder whether people such as BC2004 and Betsy would be as concerned about this man's civil rights if he were not a Republican. Personally, I somewhat suspect that they'd be firmly on the side of law and order if it were some random sodomite, and would probably be cackling with glee if it were a Democrat senator...

However, I also suspect that some others, such as Dobbins, would not be as cavalier about the way in which this incident unfolded if he were anything other than a "family values" Republican.

The way in which this particular incident was handled leaves me somewhat non-plussed.

If this is a glimpse at a how the police handle such cases in general, then maybe gay activists have a legitimate complaint.

If the police pick you up for questioning and advise you of your rights, you should consult a lawyer. A police officer is allowed to lie in the interrogation room. What he is not allowed to do is question you after you said you wish to speak to a lawyer.

The Supreme Court has weighed in for both Canada and the U.S. and said that the police can lie during interrogation once the accused has been told they have the right to seek counsel. They can tell the accused many things such as: there are witnesses, that the police already know what happened but want to hear their side, etc.

It is called: getting a confession.

From the transcript, it appears that the senator was not read his rights until after the officer had obtained a confession using the deceitful promise that there'd just be a fine and no explanation required. While I am no lawyer, I strongly suspect that this is an important distinction which would easily result in the guilty plea being thrown out. That's of little consolation to the senator, for whom the damage has been catastrophic regardless of whether the guilty plea was obtained legitimately.

When women ask for sheets of toilet paper from the next stall are they guilty of a crime too?

I'm sorry, I can't spare a square.

-k

[jdobbin]

However, I also suspect that some others, such as Dobbins, would not be as cavalier about the way in which this incident unfolded if he were anything other than a "family values" Republican.

The way in which this particular incident was handled leaves me somewhat non-plussed.

Since a similar problem has existed this past year in a Winnipeg park washroom, I believe the police have no choice but to respond. I could care less if it was any member of any party who was picked up. I think this type of act does not belong in a public washroom.

The senator was read his read Miranda rights before the interview. You have evidence that he wasn't?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/28/craig.arrest/

The senator initially resisted the officer's request to go to the police operations center, he said, but finally did. There, he was read his Miranda rights, interviewed, photographed, fingerprinted and released, the report said.

If the senator felt he was wrongly accused, he should have gotten a lawyer.

[kimmy]

Since a similar problem has existed this past year in a Winnipeg park washroom, I believe the police have no choice but to respond. I could care less if it was any member of any party who was picked up. I think this type of act does not belong in a public washroom.

As I said before, I agree with the idea that people should not be having sex in public washrooms. My objection is to the way in which this enforcement was carried out in this instance.

The senator was read his read Miranda rights before the interview. You have evidence that he wasn't?

The transcript posted earlier in the thread:

OFFICER: But there's the, there's two ways, yes. You can, you can, ah, you can go to court. You can plead guilty.

CRAIG: Yep.

OFFICER: There'll be a fine. You won't have to explain anything (inaudible) I know.

CRAIG: Right.

OFFICER: And you'll pay a fine, you'll be (inaudible) done. Or if you want to plead not guilty, ah, and I, I cant make these decisions for you.

CRAIG: No, no. Just tell me where I am (inaudible) I need to make this flight.

OFFICER: Okay. Okay. And then I go to people that are not guilty, then I would have to come to court and end up testifying. So those are the two things, okay. Did I explain that part?

CRAIG: Yes.

OFFICER: Okay. Um, ah. I'm just going to read you your rights real quick, okay? You got it on?

OFFICER: Okay.

OFFICER: Ah, the date is 6/11/07 at 1228 hours. Um, Mr Craig?

CRAIG: Yes.

OFFICER: Sorry about that. (ringing phone)

OFFICER: You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law. You have the right to talk to a lawyer now or have a present, a lawyer present now or anytime during questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed to you without cost. Do you understand each of these rights the way I have explained them to you?

Seems pretty clear cut to me. "Hey, we can do this without going to court. Just plead guilty, and there'd just be a fine and nobody has to know about this."

The officer played on the senator's fear of being "outed" to obtain a confession using the false promise of anonymity, and *then* he read him his rights.

If the senator felt he was wrongly accused, he should have gotten a lawyer.

*clearly* he should have gotten a lawyer. But clearly he was dissuaded from doing so by the officer's offer to resolve the issue quickly and anonymously.

And the means by which the officer encouraged the senator's conduct approach the grey area of entrapment.

The way in which this was carried out simply does not sit well with me.

-k

[jdobbin]

As I said before, I agree with the idea that people should not be having sex in public washrooms. My objection is to the way in which this enforcement was carried out in this instance.

Seems pretty clear cut to me. "Hey, we can do this without going to court. Just plead guilty, and there'd just be a fine and nobody has to know about this."

The officer played on the senator's fear of being "outed" to obtain a confession using the false promise of anonymity, and *then* he read him his rights.

*clearly* he should have gotten a lawyer. But clearly he was dissuaded from doing so by the officer's offer to resolve the issue quickly and anonymously.

And the means by which the officer encouraged the senator's conduct approach the grey area of entrapment.

The way in which this was carried out simply does not sit well with me.

The interview took place after Miranda rights were read not before. This was well discussed on several of the news stations as they posted the transcript you are referring to. The CNN quote I showed you says the Senator was taken to the police operations office, read his rights and interviewed.

Once the rights are read, the courts say that the officer can lie to get a confession.

I don't know how you think the officer encouraged the Senator. By being in a washroom overly long? How exactly would you end the practice of public washrooms being used for this type of behaviour? The police are generally limited to sting operations in these facilities because video and audio cannot be used in a place where there is an expectation of privacy. The police are not even allowed to videotape the luggage theft that takes place in washrooms.

[Higgly]

This whole thing is really, really sad. Personally I'd put the undercover cop in jail. Nobody had sex in a public washroom. Just really stupid. And I'm not even gay. Do the police not have anything better to do? No wonder there are so many Americans in jail. Really stupid.

[geoffrey]

This whole thing is really, really sad. Personally I'd put the undercover cop in jail. Nobody had sex in a public washroom. Just really stupid. And I'm not even gay. Do the police not have anything better to do? No wonder there are so many Americans in jail. Really stupid.

While I wouldn't put the cop in jail, the rest of it I agree with you. This was an outrageous overstepping of reasonability and responsibility by the police. It's no longer about providing safety.

[Shakeyhands]

There's public complaints about activities taking place in a public washroom, the police do their job and now you guys are complaining? Your sour grape complaints make little sense to me... Now I imagine had it being someone with a (D) following their names you be praising the officers from the top of the mountians!

[geoffrey]

Now I imagine had it being someone with a (D) following their names you be praising the officers from the top of the mountians!

Well, considering I was always a much bigger Clinton fan than a Bush one, I don't think so.

The officer was way out of line.

[jdobbin]

Well, considering I was always a much bigger Clinton fan than a Bush one, I don't think so.

The officer was way out of line.

What do you think the police should have done about illegal activity in a public facility?

[geoffrey]

What do you think the police should have done about illegal activity in a public facility?

If the stake out was done to catch the actual acts rather than make inferences about someone's intentions when picking up a piece of toilet paper, I'd have much less an issue with it. Would you be ok with criminals charges if you bumped someone's foot in a washroom (like I said, the cop's foot would have had to have been wayyyy over too for this to be physically possible)? Or pick up a piece of paper?

[jdobbin]

If the stake out was done to catch the actual acts rather than make inferences about someone's intentions when picking up a piece of toilet paper, I'd have much less an issue with it. Would you be ok with criminals charges if you bumped someone's foot in a washroom (like I said, the cop's foot would have had to have been wayyyy over too for this to be physically possible)? Or pick up a piece of paper?

I think that the situation was far less innocent than the Senator lets on. I think any police officer on this type of stakeout would know what the signs would be for a proposition.

Still, it is a case of "he said, police said." The Senator would probably have had the charges dismissed if he had used a lawyer.

[Guest coot]

Whenever I've been in a washroom where guys were cruising (something I first came upon when I was about 13 years old), I found it totally unmistakeable which guys were there to do their business and which ones were not. I wouldn't worry about this guy being falsely accused of anything. The tapping of the feet, the swiping of the hands on the stall wall to display the wedding band, and the peeking through the door are all well-founded code. Sticking your head in the back corner of the stall so that the other person is made aware of your presence is popular too.

I wouldn't make excuses for these creeps and let their lame "I was picking up toilet paper" excuses stand. Nobody picks up toilet paper in a public washroom anyway.

[kimmy]

The interview took place after Miranda rights were read not before. This was well discussed on several of the news stations as they posted the transcript you are referring to. The CNN quote I showed you says the Senator was taken to the police operations office, read his rights and interviewed.

Once the rights are read, the courts say that the officer can lie to get a confession.

I don't know how you think the officer encouraged the Senator. By being in a washroom overly long? How exactly would you end the practice of public washrooms being used for this type of behaviour? The police are generally limited to sting operations in these facilities because video and audio cannot be used in a place where there is an expectation of privacy. The police are not even allowed to videotape the luggage theft that takes place in washrooms.

I find it difficult to believe that this elaborate courtship ritual-- the foot-tapping, toilet-paper picking up, all the stuff that Senator Craig did while "cruising"-- happened with the officer providing no inducement to continue it. It could be argued that the officer being camped in the stall for such a long time was in itself an inducement (because he was obviously there for some purpose other than "breaking one off.")

And I don't care when the "interview" occurred, the transcript shows that the officer used intimidation and dispensed faulty legal advice to get the senator to comply *prior* to being placed under arrest or read his rights. It's beyond dispute. And it's utterly unethical.

And while some are puzzled to see "right wingers" suddenly become gay rights advocates, I find it equally puzzling to see supposedly "progressive" people defending this sort of conduct by the police.

-k

[jdobbin]

I find it difficult to believe that this elaborate courtship ritual-- the foot-tapping, toilet-paper picking up, all the stuff that Senator Craig did while "cruising"-- happened with the officer providing no inducement to continue it. It could be argued that the officer being camped in the stall for such a long time was in itself an inducement (because he was obviously there for some purpose other than "breaking one off.")

And I don't care when the "interview" occurred, the transcript shows that the officer used intimidation and dispensed faulty legal advice to get the senator to comply *prior* to being placed under arrest or read his rights. It's beyond dispute. And it's utterly unethical.

And while some are puzzled to see "right wingers" suddenly become gay rights advocates, I find it equally puzzling to see supposedly "progressive" people defending this sort of conduct by the police.

The police have faced the same criticism about putting their own on street corners to arrest people for soliciting for the purposes of prostitution. The Supreme Court has indicated this is not entrapment.

This is the second time you said he wasn't read his rights. He was read his rights when he was taken to the police operations center. The interview happened thereafter. I don't know that I have seen anywhere that the confession came before he was read his rights.

If the Miranda rights are waived, the police officer can lie, be deceptive and use tricks to get a confession. Afterwards, it is up to the judge to assess if they went too far. The same can happen in Canada. In fact, the police have more tricks that they can use in Canada that cannot be allowed in Britain and the U.S. One of those stings is the Mr. Big scenario where a police officer portrays a gang leader. He then gets the suspect to confess his past crimes.

I've always believed the police have to have some latitude in the ability to get people to confess to crimes when evidence is scant. It is up to the prosecutor. the judge and the jury to decide whether the officers have gone too far. I also believe it is important for there to be independent oversight of police tactics to ensure that proper protocols are followed and to see whether violations took place.

I find it puzzling why you would want to completely hamstring police from doing their jobs. They need some room to move and as long as there is oversight, I don't have a problem with it.

My attitude toward what happened in a public washroom in Minneapolis was greatly influenced by what happened in Winnipeg this year. For a while, it was a revolving door of pick-ups and activity in the washrooms at a public park witnessed every now again by children from the nearby playground.

[jdobbin]

Senator Craig to reconsider stepping down.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20593999/

BOISE, Idaho - Sen. Larry Craig is reconsidering his decision to resign after his arrest in a Minnesota airport sex sting and may still fight for his Senate seat, his spokesman said Tuesday evening.

"It's not such a foregone conclusion anymore, that the only thing he could do was resign," said Sidney Smith, Craig's spokesman in Idaho's capital.

"We're still preparing as if Sen. Craig will resign Sept. 30, but the outcome of the legal case in Minnesota and the ethics investigation will have an impact on whether we're able to stay in the fight — and stay in the Senate."

I guess we'll see if he can withdraw the guilty plea. He has hired Michael Vick's attorney and I hear he is a real pitbull.

[bush_cheney2004]

The Potty Police are on duty:

"As a Minnesotan of high moral fiber, it fills me with pride to know our airport police sit on toilet seats, hour after hour, keeping a vigilant eye and ear out for toe tappers, funny flushers and hypocrites."

http://www.startribune.com/coleman/story/1401853.html

[kimmy]

This is the second time you said he wasn't read his rights. He was read his rights when he was taken to the police operations center. The interview happened thereafter. I don't know that I have seen anywhere that the confession came before he was read his rights.

Again, re-read the transcript. He reads him his rights in the transcript, *after* using intimidation and misleading information to persuade the guy to fess up.

Here it is again:

OFFICER: But there's the, there's two ways, yes. You can, you can, ah, you can go to court. You can plead guilty.

CRAIG: Yep.

OFFICER: There'll be a fine. You won't have to explain anything (inaudible) I know.

CRAIG: Right.

OFFICER: And you'll pay a fine, you'll be (inaudible) done. Or if you want to plead not guilty, ah, and I, I cant make these decisions for you.

CRAIG: No, no. Just tell me where I am (inaudible) I need to make this flight.

OFFICER: Okay. Okay. And then I go to people that are not guilty, then I would have to come to court and end up testifying. So those are the two things, okay. Did I explain that part?

CRAIG: Yes.

OFFICER: Okay. Um, ah. I'm just going to read you your rights real quick, okay? You got it on?

OFFICER: Okay.

OFFICER: Ah, the date is 6/11/07 at 1228 hours. Um, Mr Craig?

CRAIG: Yes.

OFFICER: Sorry about that. (ringing phone)

OFFICER: You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law. You have the right to talk to a lawyer now or have a present, a lawyer present now or anytime during questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed to you without cost. Do you understand each of these rights the way I have explained them to you?

Note how he is advised of his rights at the END of the conversation, while the intimidation and misleading information is provided EARLIER.

If you are really having a hard time with this, I will get Oscar and Grover to explain "Before" and "After" to you.

I've always believed the police have to have some latitude in the ability to get people to confess to crimes when evidence is scant. It is up to the prosecutor. the judge and the jury to decide whether the officers have gone too far. I also believe it is important for there to be independent oversight of police tactics to ensure that proper protocols are followed and to see whether violations took place.

I find it puzzling why you would want to completely hamstring police from doing their jobs. They need some room to move and as long as there is oversight, I don't have a problem with it.

My attitude toward what happened in a public washroom in Minneapolis was greatly influenced by what happened in Winnipeg this year. For a while, it was a revolving door of pick-ups and activity in the washrooms at a public park witnessed every now again by children from the nearby playground.

What upsets me is not the fact that a sting operation was conducted in the washroom.

What upsets me is the way in which the police officer obtained the senator's compliance.

While the information available certainly makes it sound like the senator was indeed "cruising", the manner in which the officer proceeded could have just as easily obtained a confession from a completely innocent man.

Suppose some random guy is in the crapper, tapping his foot because he had a song in his head, or because he has restless leg syndrome, or because he was impatient, or for no particular reason, (or perhaps he's not even tapping his foot at all!) The officer hauls him out of the crapper and tells him that he's going to wind up in an open courtroom on charges of soliciting gay sex in a public washroom... unless he confesses and pays a small fine, in which case he can avoid the public humiliation.

*Any* man, innocent or guilty, would give serious consideration to pleading guilty if they were concerned that the damage to their reputation or the questions about their character or the humiliation of answering such charges were worth more than a few bucks.

If these tactics are acceptable, then there is a decent probability that the officer can convince *anybody* to plead guilty to this charge. Which leaves it entirely up to the officer's discretion. Which is entirely unacceptable to me. While in this case the officer appears to have stung somebody who was, in fact, "cruising", the potential for abuse is obvious, and the only reason there's any scrutiny at all was the profile of the accused in this instance.

After reading the transcript, do you really not recognize the potential for a police officer to intimidate a completely innocent person into confessing?

I'm appalled that anybody who considers themselves "progressive" would approve of this sort of tactic.

-k